Evidence to support the Christian Bible.

[Confused]

This is simple:

What evidence exists to support the truth of the OT and NT. By evidence, I mean something outside of scripture. What evidence supports the stories of the OT and the NT?
I am not looking for evidence of the supernatural per se. But what about it gives it authenticity? Such as archeological evidence to support the existence of a place and the person who lived there. Perhaps some of the events that are physical in nature as well.

[Goat]

Is there any proof that Jesus was a real person? http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33097

The "proof" for the existence of Christ can be found in three main sources. The argument for the existence of Jesus is strengthened because the person of Jesus Christ is mentioned by independent Christian, Jewish, and Roman sources. Obviously the person of Jesus is mentioned quite thoroughly in the New Testament and other early Christian writings but Jesus is also mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus. The fact that Josephus, a practicing Jew and a man who was not actively involved Christian circles and not part of the early church mentions the existence of Jesus of Nazareth in his writings definitely gives credence to the argument for the existence of Jesus Christ. In turn, another of the most credible arguments for the existence of Jesus Christ are the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus. Tacitus was a Roman historian who also mentioned the existence of the crucifixion of Jesus in his writings. In turn, the writings of Tacitus are viewed by historians as crucial to not only understanding early Middle Eastern history but also what we know of early Germanic tribes in Europe. In essence, while the divinity of Jesus is not something that can be proven historically, the historical community is quite sure that a person named Jesus did live in the Middle East two thousand years ago and can look to independent historical sources to strengthen their argument.

Historical and Scientific Proof of Jesus
HERE

Historians routinely cite Herodotus as a key source of information. He wrote from 488 B.C. to 428 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work comes from 900 A.D. (1,300 years later). There are only eight known copies of his work.

By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages.

Still, to put to rest the notion that there is no historic and scientific proof of Jesus outside the Bible, we may look to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and to Roman historian Carius Cornelius Tacitus - both well known and accepted.

Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:

". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

You do know that the mention of Jesus by Josephus was considered a forgery for many years, and is still considered a forgery by many. As for the roman sources, can you say for sure they are independent?? They are second century references. How can you be sure Tacitus didn't get his information from Christians, or from Pilney (who he knew), who got his information from the torture of Christian slaves?

Calling the Jewish and Roman sources 'independent' is not an accurate statement.

As far as those copies are concerned.. well, yes.. we have a lot of little fragments.. how ever the extend of them, and the date of them make your statement a red herring. It is totally irrelevant to the historical or mythological nature of the events within them.

So, you have a forgery, and writings that can be evidence of Christians, not Jesus.

As for the earliest copy being 130 C>E.. well, that is an outright preposterous statement. There is a fragment that is about the size of a handkerchief that has a few words from the Gospel of John on it. That is not a copy of the New Testament. AND, the method of dating is by the use of the style of writing. In other cases, the margin of error given for that kind of evaluation is +/- 100 years. In this case, it is a mere 20 (130 ce. to 150 ce) with a sample that is much smaller than
usual. Using that method of dating can actually put the sample as late as the early 3rd century. To say that it shows a 'copy' from 130 is dishonest to say the least.

[Zzyzx]

.

So, you have a forgery, and writings that can be evidence of Christians, not Jesus.

Thank you, Goat, for providing information to counter the usual Christian claims that of "independent" evidence for the existence of Jesus – and showing how weak and suspect the "evidence" that supposedly verifies the stories.

One would think that if "the creator of the universe" (or his "son") visited the Earth for thirty years there would be abundant evidence -- not just unverifiable stories told by religious followers or fanatics or promoters.

Of course that information is of no use to those who are rigid in their dependence upon religious promotional literature and church dogma. However, what you say IS useful to those who are capable of examining the subject with some objectivity and making their own decisions. Your efforts are appreciated.

[The Duke of Vandals]

The "truth" of Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, aka the Christian Old Testament, is not literal or historical truth, but moral and metaphysical truth which is subject to reinterpretation and development - evolution, if you like - in every generation.

False. The bible makes literal, real-world claims that either happened or didn't happen. One or the other. Yes, some of it is metaphorical, but I will not allow you nor any other theist to hide obviously false claims behind the false auspice of metaphor.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Historians routinely cite Herodotus as a key source of information. He wrote from 488 B.C. to 428 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work comes from 900 A.D. (1,300 years later). There are only eight known copies of his work.

I'm keenly disapointed and troubled by the fact that you see nothing wrong with calling someone who lived HUNDREDS of years after the fact as a "source".

All of you Christians are asking the wrong questions, anyway.

You're looking for people who mention Jesus. That's not the question we need to answer.

The question we need to look at is whether or not Jesus Christ was an historical figure who was exagerated (like Caesar or Alexander) or if he was a fictional character who could have been thought of as real (like Huckleberry Fin or Sherlock Holmes). When we ply intellectual honesty to this question, we see that the evidence is overwhelmingly for a fictional individual.

[joer]

Bernee! Nice to see you brother! Along with Confused, McCulloch, Norman, ZZzz, goat the Duke and lots of old friends as well as new faces like the Truth Teller. Howdy Truth Teller good to see you here.

Anyway Bernee you wrote:

Really Joer. I thought you were way beyond such straw clutching as you have displayed in your last two posts.

I don't know what would ever make you think that!

To those who believe, No Evidence is Necessary!

To those who don't, No Evidence will Suffice.

It's as simple as that! Ain't it my friends?

Good Will to you all my friends. I don't believe Confused was trying to suck anyone in. Zzzy might try something like that just to prove any thing pertaining to God was wrong. But I believe Confused presented her question openly and candidly with no Agenda.

Quite Literally to see what's out there. And if you do a little Google on Historical Proof of Bible, you'll find quite a bit. And as you can see from the sample I've shared here some sources more objective than others.

Peace be with you all. Very nice to see some old faces still alive and kicking! I hope that carries on for many more years. Especially for all those I mentioned personally.

[McCulloch]

To those who believe No Evidence is Necessary!
To those who don't, No Evidence will Suffice.

Why then debate?

Quite Literally to see what's out there. And if you do a little Google on Historical Proof of Bible, you'll find quite a bit. And as you can see from the sample I've shared here some sources more objective than others.

I did and found none that I would consider objective. Perhaps you can post one or two links to the more objective sources.

[Noachian]

How does the Bible, in your eyes, having to be perfectly historically accurate have anything to do with its philosophical, spiritual and poetic integrity?

It is a rather odd question to ask "Wheres the evidence for the Bible?" when it a selection of Judeo-Christian texts gathered over thousands of years by many different authors who barely knew each other or had little implication of trying to prove their spiritual experience or historical accuracy. The Bible is not a thoery, it is what people felt prompted to write in the circumstances of their times and is, in my view, the philosophical and spiritual masterpiece of humanity's literate ability.

Many of the biblical authors were simply trying to write their spiritual experience of the world and beyond in the simplest way they could describe it.... what exactly do you want evidence for? Whether David killed Golieth? Whether Moses parted the Red Sea? What are you really questioning; some Hebrew's spiritual feelings about his world or the global institution[s] which has founded its[them]self upon its teachings?

Its actually ridiculous to ask for evidence for the Bible, as it isn't trying to prove anything.

[joer]

Did you know a few weeks ago there was another scientific geological discovery that added to the credibility of The Urantia Book Revelation?

There's probably not much interest on the athiestic or Christian sides at this site. But as with the Bible, Scientific Proof of Revelation holds a lot of wieght now adays. Except as I pointed out before, for those where No Proof will Suffice.

Matt Neibaur posted this today 9/25/08 on UBRON. I was just wondering if anyone might know WHEN (what year) the age of these rocks were determined and they were found at Hudson Bay?

TUB stated there location and age as the oldest rocks on the surface of the earth by 1946 when there printing plates were locked in the printer's vault until it was published in 1955.

Researchers find oldest rocks on Earth
HERE

Canadian bedrock more than four billion years old may be the oldest known section of the Earth's early crust. Scientists at the Carnegie Institution used geochemical methods to obtain an age of 4.28 billion years for samples of the rock, making it 250 million years more ancient than any previously discovered rocks. The findings, which offer scientists clues to the earliest stages of our planet's evolution, are published in the September 26 issue of Science.

This is an interesting article on the ancient rocks found at the Hudson Bay. Compare to the UB below. This article states that 2001 was the date it was first recognized. Perhaps someone with a historical or geological background could give some insight.

Researchers find oldest rocks on Earth

The Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt is an expanse of bedrock exposed on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec and was first recognized in 2001 as a potential site of very old rocks. Samples of the Nuvvuagittuq rocks were collected by geologists from McGill University in Montreal and analyzed by Jonathan O'Neil, a PhD student at McGill, and Richard Carlson at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Terrestrial Magnetism.

By measuring minute variations in the isotopic composition of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium in the rocks, O'Neil and Carlson determined that the rock samples range from 3.8 to 4.28 billion years old. The oldest dates came from rocks termed "faux amphibolite," which the researchers interpret to be ancient volcanic deposits. "There have been older dates from Western Australia for isolated resistant mineral grains called zircons," says Carlson, "but these are the oldest whole rocks found so far."

The oldest zircon dates are 4.36 billion years. Before this study, the oldest dated rocks were from a body of rock known as the Acasta Gneiss in the Northwest Territories, which are 4.03 billion years old. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and remnants of its early crust are extremely rare—most of it has been mashed and recycled into Earth's interior several times over by plate tectonics since the Earth formed.

The rocks are significant not only for their great age but also for their chemical composition, which resembles that of volcanic rocks in geologic settings where tectonic plates are crashing together. "This gives us an unprecedented glimpse of the processes that formed the early crust," says Carlson.

Oldest Rocks on Earth (Phys.org)

From the UB:
P.661 - §4 Shortly after Urantia was first recognized on the universe broadcasts to all Nebadon, it was accorded full universe status. Soon thereafter it was registered in the records of the minor and the major sector headquarters planets of the superuniverse; and before this age was over, Urantia had found entry on the planetary-life registry of Uversa.

P.661 - §5 This entire age was characterized by frequent and violent storms. The early crust of the earth was in a state of continual flux. Surface cooling alternated with immense lava flows. Nowhere can there be found on the surface of the world anything of this original planetary crust. It has all been mixed up too many times with extruding lavas of deep origins and admixed with subsequent deposits of the early world-wide ocean.

P.661 - §6 Nowhere on the surface of the world will there be found more of the modified remnants of these ancient preocean rocks than in northeastern Canada around Hudson Bay. This extensive granite elevation is composed of stone belonging to the preoceanic ages. These rock layers have been heated, bent, twisted, upcrumpled, and again and again have they passed through these distorting metamorphic experiences. Matt N.

The point is, even these events are previously revealed in sources like the Bible or The Urantia Book. There are those who refuse to acknowledge the scientific relevance of such events.

All the archeological or historical discoveries of the last hundred years that corroborate Biblical places or events are disparaged by those who wish those Biblical places or events to remain unsupported. IMHO.

Peace my friends.

[joer]

Mac wrote:

joer wrote:
To those who believe No Evidence is Necessary!
To those who don't, No Evidence will Suffice.

Why then debate?

My point exactly. and this:

joer wrote:
Quite Literally to see what's out there. And if you do a little Google on Historical Proof of Bible, you'll find quite a bit. And as you can see from the sample I've shared here some sources more objective than others.

I did and found none that I would consider objective. Perhaps you can post one or two links to the more objective sources.

Here's one I've already posted Mac. What do you find about it that is Not Objective?
The 1971 Excavation of King Solomon's Gate
http://www.kingsolomonsgate.com/

[Confused]

How does the Bible, in your eyes, having to be perfectly historically accurate have anything to do with its philosophical, spiritual and poetic integrity?

Did I imply it did or are you reading my OP to mean what you choose it to? If so, well then perhaps that is partially my fault as I could have been a bit clearer in my presentation. Either way, if you are unsure, you should ask before making wide leaps of assumptions.

It is a rather odd question to ask "Wheres the evidence for the Bible?" when it a selection of Judeo-Christian texts gathered over thousands of years by many different authors who barely knew each other or had little implication of trying to prove their spiritual experience or historical accuracy. The Bible is not a thoery, it is what people felt prompted to write in the circumstances of their times and is, in my view, the philosophical and spiritual masterpiece of humanity's literate ability.

So it is a fable?

Many of the biblical authors were simply trying to write their spiritual experience of the world and beyond in the simplest way they could describe it.... what exactly do you want evidence for? Whether David killed Golieth? Whether Moses parted the Red Sea? What are you really questioning; some Hebrew's spiritual feelings about his world or the global institution[s] which has founded its[them]self upon its teachings?

Are you serious? How about proving the "David" in question existed? How about Moses? I honestly can't say you read too much into the OP or not enough? Your questions are scattered with absolutely no pattern whatsoever.

Its actually ridiculous to ask for evidence for the Bible, as it isn't trying to prove anything.

No, it is only trying to teach you something. If you are to be taught, should it not be from a reliable source? Should we not know if the stories in the bible actually occurred? How would you presume we do that? I think McCulloch presented a rather typical response in Post #2.